Edwina, THIS is about as close as a living organism gets to "blind mechanical copying": https://youtu.be/jdzi8JFx0ys
But even here, I'm not sure that it's really all that blind. What is it about a child's laughter that inspired this critter to imitate? I wonder if it detects something joyful, something worth imitating? There was that time that I encountered an adult magpie and its distressed child in our back yard, and tossed bits of salami at the adult, which promptly picked up each piece and offered it to the squawking youngster. After having enjoyed their fill, the adult hopped down to me only a few feet from where I was standing, and sang to me. It was then that I realized the style of singing... the "language" as it were... expressing joy or gratitude. It's tempting for us rationalists to dismiss birdsong as arbitrary noise-making, but there is, in fact, considerable meaning being expressed. Not sure what to make of parrots that often so perfectly imitate human speech though... of course they don't understand our spoken words, but... maybe sometimes they might connect the dots, at a very basic level, through associate learning (2ns)? sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 2:10 PM To: 'Peirce-L'; Auke van Breemen Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem Auke- I wasn't thinking of either; I was referring to Stephen's phrase of 'blind mechanical copying'...which to me, simply means mimesis without mediative thought or input. Even an interaction in 2ns has some 'input' via the direct physical contact. So a pantogram would use 2ns in its interaction. The only point I was trying to make is that the relation has no capacity to NOT carry out mimesis. Rather like a plague of insects! Edwina On Mon 25/02/19 5:14 AM , "Auke van Breemen" a.bree...@chello.nl sent: Edwina, Edwina, I was wondering what meaning you attach to ‘blind copting’. Are you thinking about pantographs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantograph) or mechanical key reproducers like: https://www.grainger.com/product/KABA-ILCO-Key-Duplicator-52HN52 Best, Auke Van: Edwina Taborsky Verzonden: zondag 24 februari 2019 14:53 Aan: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Helmut Raulien' ; Stephen Jarosek CC: 'Auke van Breemen' ; 'Peirce-L' Onderwerp: Re: RE: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem That's why Peirce has the multiple types of categories. Blind copying is both 1-1 and 3-1. Mindful of a common identity involves both 2ns and 3ns. Edwina On Sun 24/02/19 2:57 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: List The more I think about it, the more I think we really need a new term to distinguish from blind, mechanical imitation/mimesis. One that incorporates pragmatism, knowing how to be (Dasein) and the assimilation of values into a logically consistent whole. I place my vote on the word assimitation. sj From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au ] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:37 AM To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Helmut Raulien' Cc: 'Auke van Breemen'; 'Peirce-L' Subject: RE: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem I think we might be committing something of a category error here with regards to imitation and the categories. Both imitation and entropy relate to and depend on all three categories. But imitation and entropy have to do with integration and disintegration, respectively, and not specifically with the categories. Perhaps it might pay to return to the earlier reframing that I suggested, to synthesize the word imitation with assuming, to yield assimitation. We need to do this because imitation as I use it is not blind, dumb mechanical imitation, but semiotically informed pragmatism… the knowing how to be… the having to decide what values (signs) matter… the distinction between the known and the unknown. The assuming prefix implies continuity and habituation. In order to be motivated to imitate, you need to assume what’s real and internalize it (firstness), before you can imitate and habituate the real (thirdness). This is Pragmatism 1:001. The assuming part is important, and relates to what Buddhism refers as “seeing the world from the observer’s level”. The reason that I don’t use the word assimitation in these forums is because it’s not a word that you’ll find in the dictionary. But it is definitely the nuance that I imply… when I use the word imitation I mean assimitation. So there’s important elements of firstness and thirdness right there. But there is another important aspect, too. To achieve continuity across time, all participants in any colony, be it a culture of humans or a colony of cells or a swarm of insects, all participants need to come to a mutual agreement on what matters, so that each can assign themselves to their respective divisions of labor. Without that mutual agreement, arrived at by assimitation, there would only be chaos. The categories are still critically important, but assimitation and entropy emphasize different dynamics… unity versus disintegration. The categories are the filter that determines the signs that mind-bodies are motivated to assimitate. For example, humans with female mind-bodies assimitate women, humans with male mind-bodies assimitate men. Assimitation is integral to survival. But assimitation taken to extremes, motivated by fear, self-interest and the need to belong, however, is something very different. We recognize it in the word groupthink. Groupthink is the annihilator of diversity, not assimitation. The matter of unity versus disintegration is important because it relates to the notion of self. To quote Peirce, “The man is the thought.” Similarly, I suggest that “The culture is the thought.” Neurons in a brain are to personality what people in a city are to culture. This would not be possible without assimitation. So to summarize… all three categories are relevant to both assimitation and entropy. Assimitation incorporates all three categories without favor in the interest of unity… the motivations that collective values harness (firstness), the association of shared values to form a logical unity (secondness), and the habituation of assumptions (thirdness). Entropy as the tendency to disorder (reduction of assimitation) impacts on all three categories to dissemble unity… differentiated motivations, disintegration of shared values, and the atomization of assumptions. In other words, assimitation and entropy, while incorporating the categories, actually relate to something quite distinct to the categories… that is, unity vs disintegration. Apologies if this has turned out more long-winded than expected. These are important issues that need to be explored. Thank you Edwina and Helmut for raising them. sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 6:06 PM To: tabor...@primus.ca; Helmut Raulien Cc: 'Auke van Breemen'; 'Peirce-L'; Stephen Jarosek Subject: Re: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem Helmut - my point about the importance of 3ns in reducing entropy had nothing to do, I think [I may be wrong] with Autism in any of its forms [including Asperger's]. I can see, however, that 1sn, in the form of iconicity, reduces 'noise' [aka entropy] in communicative interactions - and perhaps those people with Autism are more sensitive to a wider spectrum of external data and can't filter it easily to isolate and demote the 'noise'. My point is only that both 1ns and 3ns have their roles, different roles, in reducing noise/entropy and strengthening information. Edwina On Thu 21/02/19 11:44 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, list, To what you wrote (and with which I agree) I want to add in my own words: Non-autists, in conversations, do a lot of imitation: Affirmation of relations, corrobating what others have said, small-talk, and so on, all that to stabilize the discourse setting, to team-build, maintain a comfortable situation. Autists (Aspergers) don´t do that, but focus on the topic only. What they do, I think, is not completely described with the term "generalization". Instead of talking with (others), they rather talk about (something). What is this aboutness? I think, it is, instead of dwelling in relations, making relations objects, ontologizing relations. In semiotic terms, I guess, it is not just "thirdness", but something more specific, like making the sign an object, or something like that... Best, Helmut 21. Februar 2019 um 14:48 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: List I agree that 'imitation addresses the entropy problem' - but, only in part. Imitation functions in a mode of Firstness and although it produces similarity of Type, such a result would decimate the capacity of the species to adapt since it rejects diversity. You'd end up with a frozen Type - a rather mechanical result that is great in machines but devastating in biology and cognition. Instead, I'd add Thirdness as a means of addressing the entropy problem, since it functions to generalize without iconicity. That is, it produces commonalities of Type without also producing iconic clones. The generalities will function to maintain a certain community of interaction but also enable enough individual diversities to permit adaptive capacities. Edwina On Thu 21/02/19 5:27 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: >"Is there a difference in the way you try to establish contact and teach that >depends on the hypothesis you work with?" Absolutely. The dominance of the genocentric narrative predisposes us to assuming that there is something inherently "wrong" with the autistic that needs fixing. A circuitry problem that needs a circuitry fix. But if we re-interpret the autistic's perspective as their way of understanding their world according to their assumptions, then we place ourselves in a position of being better able to negotiate the assumptions that they are making. In much the same way that Thomas Szasz, author of The Myth of Mental Illness, argues that schizophrenics can be negotiated back to reality (if we think it through, schizophrenia is also an imitation deficit... but originating in a dysfunctional family narrative... the imitation deficit manifests itself when the schizophrenic exits the dysfunctional family context and tries to connect with the wider cultural). It is incorrect to assume that the autistic's assumptions are wrong or silly and can be shamed or bullied away. Their assumptions can be very sensible and logical, and need to be understood in the context in which they were arrived at. For example, hyper-rationality... an autistic might dismiss the reading of faces and emotions as irrelevant to their priority for the facts. "Just give me the facts, I don't care what you think or feel." Or, as another example... if a parent fusses obsessively about protecting the child from harm, that child will become more self-focused, and be predisposed to be abnormally hyper-vigilant in contexts that are not that big a deal. The self-focus is particularly significant, because it predisposes the child to defining things to matter that will leave normal people unfazed. Autism is logical... often too logical. A compelling semiotic paradigm explains it nicely. And autism, like schizophrenia, with the right understanding, can be negotiated. Or let's put this another way. Imitation, as pragmatism, also plays an important part in how we define the things that matter. An extreme family context informs the schizophrenic of extreme assumptions that matter and this wires their neuroplastic brain. Things might appear fine within the family context, but when they try to connect with the wider culture, that's when serious problems arise with the cognitive dissonance of the schizophrenic. Rockstar psychologist Jordan Peterson observed that behavioral oddities are detected by the wider culture, the schizophrenic/autistic is excluded by the majority, and the isolation feeds isolation to snowball into a logical way of thinking that is utterly incomprehensible to the "well-adjusted". Neural plasticity is an integral part of this narrative, because the functional specializations in the brain (how the brain wires itself) relies on the experiences with which the autistic/schizophrenic interfaces. Their dysfunction does not come from "circuitry" or genes. It relies on how experience wires the brain (Norman Doidge, The Brain That Changes Itself, 2007). Imitation addresses the entropy problem. Imitation is knowing how to be. Imitation is survival. Get your imitation wrong, and it might kill you. Regards From: Auke van Breemen [a.bree...@chello.nl] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:34 AM To: 'Peirce-L' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem List, Jerry reminded me of: The dress of an attendee by a diner caught fire. Herbert Peirce, a brother, jumped up immediately and extinguished the fire as it ought to be done. Afterwards Charles asked him how he could have been so quick and adequate in his response. Herbert answered: [. . . ] he told me that since Mrs. Longfellow's death, it was that he had often run over in imagination all the details of what ought to be done in such an emergency. It was a striking example of a real habit produced by exercises in the imagination. CP. 5.487, in the footnote.(See also CP 5.538.) Note that starting the exercises in the imagination supposes a value judgment to the extent that a person on fire is an unwholesome state of affairs which ought to be repaired. Now, imagine you are responsible for a child with autism. The question I raise is the following: Is there a difference in the way you try to establish contact and teach that depends on the hypothesis you work with? Case 1: it is a problem with the imagination or mimicking of action Case 2: it is a problem with the directing of attention Best, Auke van Breemen Van: Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com > Verzonden: woensdag 20 februari 2019 23:56 Aan: Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> CC: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem Dear list, Stephen said: Could imitation be so important, that this is the reason why we don’t recognize it? Although Peirce read and thought more about Aristotle than about any other man, the Poetry, he knew nothing about. That is, Peirce was not Greek-minded. He then turns to a discussion of representation or imitation (μίμησις). Tragedy is, then, a representation of an action that is heroic and complete and of a certain magnitude.. And since tragedy represents action and is acted by living persons, who must of necessity have certain qualities of character and thought— for it is these which determine the quality of an action; indeed thought and character are the natural causes of any action and it is in virtue of these that all men succeed or fail— it follows then that it is the plot which represents the action. By "plot" I mean here the arrangement of the incidents: "character" is that which determines the quality of the agents, and "thought" appears wherever in the dialogue they put forward an argument or deliver an opinion. (~1450a, Poetics) No doubt, Pragmaticism makes thought ultimately apply to action exclusively - to conceived action. For instance, we all know what he meant by conceived action, here. With best wishes, Jerry R On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:24 AM Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote: Stephen, list, An interesting question. And an even more interesting approach: But this time, applying reverse logic, I asked myself… what are the illnesses that manifest because of a patient’s failure to imitate properly? I followed a similar strategy and found it most profitable for getting at the finer details of the semiotic framework to ask how a-typical behavior and mistakes can be understood semiotically. The text https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf contains theoretical considerations based on research I did amongst children that fall out of the schoolsystem in the Netherlands. Since I started with stories from parents, in the majority of cases the blame was put on schools not being able to deal with complexities of the child, not on children showing some sort of criminal behavior. Two labels were used most for the children that surfaced in the research: autism and highly gifted. With an autism - highly gifted ratio higher then 5 - 1. But one has to take into account that the IQ tests of the majority of autism pupils were above average, most of the time with a score on some sub-tests considerably higher, then on some other. And that some parents that called their children highly gifted based themselves on the average result of the wisc test solely. Disregarding enormous discrepancies on sub-tests (on a scale length of 19 two lowest score of 5 and two highest of 18, the remainder, if I remember correctly above 12) and without recognition of the tri-partite demand for highly gifted performance: inborn qualities, character of the child and environment. With autism the situation is even more complex regarding the feats that show themselves in different cases. Compare the child that does hardly communicate with the Asperger diagnosed student that follows multiple studies at the same time with good learning results or for that matter with the 18 years old who socially communicates on a level comparable in some respects to a 5 years old, but that at the same time mastered reading by himself before being 4 years old. The above is meant to underscore that I don’t profess to provide an answer, but only raise an alternative explanation. So, if it is a failure in the ability to mimic (icon based), it is a failure in some not all domains. This points in the direction of a background problem with the direction of attention (index based). I regard it feasible that autism semiotically can be understood by recognizing that a strong reliance on legisigns (types) and their habitually associated symbols prevent exploration of the rhematic (combinatoric) possibilities of new input signs. The adaptability to circumstances is seriously hindered in this way. And indeed, as you state, it appears as an inability to mimic social wished behavior. Until, that is, one succeeds in getting attention for the social problems, in that case a social scientist may be the result. Best, Auke van Breemen Van: Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> Verzonden: woensdag 20 februari 2019 7:58 Aan: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Onderwerp: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem Dear Members, [This post carries on from our December thread “Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis”] I've been trying to put an article together, on imitation, for Gatherings in Biosemiotics 2019 in Moscow. But I don’t think I can put together anything of substance, in a format that would interest the gathering. Nonetheless, I remain of the opinion that imitation as a fundamental principle would definitely have interested Peirce, especially from the perspective of pragmatism. Perhaps something to explore at the Gathering? Google brings up a great many references to imitation, but nothing on imitation as a fundamental principle. But this time, applying reverse logic, I asked myself… what are the illnesses that manifest because of a patient’s failure to imitate properly? I’ve struck pay-dirt, particularly with reference to autism. Is autism a disease directly attributable to imitation deficit? Here are some links: An examination of the imitation deficit in autism: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-02466-009 The Social Role of Imitation in Autism: https://depts.washington.edu/isei/iyc/21.2_Ingersoll.pdf Does Impaired Social Motivation Drive Imitation Deficits in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-015-0054-9 A great many references exist on imitation generally, but nothing on imitation as a principle... for example: https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/personality-traits-contagious-among-children/ Here is a nice overview of imitation from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitation SUMMARY OF SOME CORE ISSUES RELATING TO IMITATION Autism is not a faulty-wiring/dysfunctional genes problem. AUTISM IS AN IMITATION-PRAGMATISM PROBLEM. It is not a disease, sickness or pathology in the usual sense of the term, because it is a normal (if dysfunctional) product of motivation, association and habituation (Peircean categories). All these complex theories about psychology, schizophrenia and inheritance of behavioral traits. What if we were wrong? What if it all amounts to nothing other than imitation? Behavior inherited across generations not through genes, but through… imitation. Kalevi Kull has published some articles recently on the relationship between semiosis and choice (e.g., Choosing and learning: Semiosis means choice). Imitation is one of the ways that organisms make choices. People choose from culture and culture is imitation. Many references can be found on imitation, from Plato and Aristotle to Piaget and Freud. But never as a fundamental principle. What are we missing? Imitation (assimitation – defined below) should be explored as a fundamental principle with respect to pragmatism and knowing how to be. Imitation is integral to solving the entropy problem. Hebb’s rule suggests that neurons imitate… “neurons that fire together wire together”. Heck, even atoms and molecules imitate… we call it entanglement. If Peirce were alive today, he’d eat this stuff up. Imitation (assimitation) is an important topic not just from the perspective of psychological health, but also from the perspective of politics, personal well-being and the company we keep. Is it sensible for the European Union to maintain an open borders policy, with an immigration policy that ignores the implications of imitation and cultural identity? Peirce’s categories are hugely important, but imitation is the overlay that makes cultural complexity possible. Without imitation as a primal driver, human culture as we know it, would be non-existent. Imitation is not an incidental “add-on”. It is a primal foundation and first-cause. It is the most important solution to the entropy problem, because without imitation, there would be no colonies or culture. Peirce’s categories are the filter through which organisms decide what to imitate. Humans with female mind-bodies will imitate women, not men. Humans with male mind-bodies will imitate men, not women. Wolves in the wild will imitate wolves. Dogs in cities will imitate humans (as far as their canine mind-bodies predispose them to). Feral infants raised by wolves will imitate wolves (as far as their human mind-bodies predispose them to). And so on and on and on. Imitation is so very important that even Neo-Darwinians have tried to incorporate it into their framework. I refer to Richard Dawkins and his memetic theory. Could imitation be so important, that this is the reason why we don’t recognize it? Something so pervasive, so everywhere. Heck, we can’t keep imitation out of every single word that carries our accent. Asking a human to tell us about imitation is like asking a fish to tell us about water. We have no reference to what it would be like to live without imitation. We just assume things, without realizing that the assuming is, at its core, a product of imitation. Regards, Stephen Jarosek From: Stephen Jarosek [sjaro...@iinet.net.au] Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2018 12:14 PM To: 'Helmut Raulien'; 'biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee' Cc: 'tabor...@primus.ca'; 'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu' Subject: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis I agree with you, Helmut, that the concept of culture is extremely important. More important than the vast, overwhelming majority of people can hope to understand. I was blessed with having to grow up in a dysfunctional war-refugee family, and having to make sense of a hyper-materialistic-hedonistic “fun” culture that believes its own bullshit (actually, all cultures believe their own bullshit, by definition, but the most hedonistic-materialistic are the worst… but I digress). Suspended within a no-man’s land without sensible truths to anchor to, I had to formulate my own interpretations from scratch. Eastern religions such as Buddhism often refer to the importance of letting go of assumptions and definitions, as part of spiritual practice. Far from the leisure of spiritual practice, this was a condition that was foisted on me as a matter of survival, it was not a condition that I chose. What people don’t realize is the importance of imitation. They don’t get it, that all that they ever have are assumptions. Imitation is actually the wrong word… a more precise phrase is “knowing how to be”. It’s about the replication of behavior… taking your culture’s assumptions for granted. Maybe we need a new word that synthesizes assuming with imitating. Assimitating maybe? Yes… for want of a better word, let’s stick with that… assimitating. And let’s define it in the context of “knowing how to be”. First of all, one has to choose a niche from their culture to belong to. Secondly, they have to assimitate and replicate the assumptions of their chosen niche, to strictly observe its limits. One can move across niches, and one must choose one to belong to, but limits must be observed. Niche boundaries do not necessarily appear strict to those observing them, however, because they assume that this is “just” the way that reality is. Observing niche boundaries is a fine balancing act between the courage of individualism and the cowardice of conformity. Courageous observance (testing the limits) is for leaders, timid observance is for followers. But no matter what, niche boundaries MUST be observed. For those that fail to observe said boundaries, or push the boundaries too far with their courage, and there are sizeable numbers of both, their lot is often disenfranchisement, invisibility, maybe even psychosis or schizophrenia. So what are the boundaries of the culture as a whole? As I’ve mentioned before in other threads, culture is analogous to a thought. A society of people is to culture what a brain of neurons is to thought. Metaphors from chaos theory are informative. Role models as attractors. Boundary conditions. Initial conditions. A culture comprised of subcultures (niches) is still a unity. The farthest niches from one another, within a culture, are still fundamentally united in their sharing of the assumptions that matter (pragmatism). Assimitation within a culture is integral to pragmatism, because it’s how people establish the assumptions that matter. Assumptions are habits… thirdness. Initial conditions is a concept that has especially caught my attention of late. It relates to scaffolding. Meaning is built upon meaning, and the initial conditions… first experiences… are important because of this. You can’t just wake up one morning and decide to change your world-view with the affirmative “this is the first day of the rest of my life.” But it also goes much deeper than that. I am recognizing this as I walk around the city streets of my grandfather’s homeland, with the realization “hey, so that’s where I got that quirky trait from!” (yes, I’m still discovering things about myself). It begins with mother's nurturing… nay, it begins in the womb… there are several examples of the latter referenced in my paper Pragmatism, Neural Plasticity and Mind-body Unity. Which brings us to your reference to fundamentalist religions, mafias, etc. That is, groupthink. What is the distinction between groupthink and healthy culture? One clue lies in the moral individualism of Christianity, its relationship to courage, and Jesus as a role model (I’m not a Christian, but I respect why Christianity was effective). Groupthink is a feature of fear and cowardice, and it sticks like glue, turning people into unquestioning NPC-bots yearning for social approval and the need to belong. Particularly relevant to today’s culture of social media. Hedonism and “fun” cultures are obsessed with needs and, despite their apparent “freedoms” and indulgences, are contained within strictly self-enforced limits revolving around social approval. Buddhism seems to incorporate a lot of these understandings. I’d just like to see one thing corrected though. Buddhists assume that all problems stem from desire. No, desire (firstness?) is downstream from assimitation (pragmatism). Assimitation, knowing how to be, is where all the problems begin, because that’s where all choices begin. Regards, sj no woo From: Helmut Raulien [h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 8:07 PM To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Supplement: I think there is so much more to discuss, esp. about the concept of culture: Is culture merely tradition and a homeostatic system of unquestioned habits, or may it also be a culture of culture criticism and innovation, like a culture of habit-revising and habit-breaking? Or would this not be "culture" anymore, but something else, an emancipation from culture? And so on. Anyway, "culture" is merely the produce of an observation, just secondness, but not something containing thirdness essentialities such as values or laws. Btw, evolution has not stopped with the evolution of nervous systems. Causa efficiens is like proto-symbolic (force, laws... . To say natural laws are conventional, would suggest a polytheistic idea of gods having had a meeting, haha. So proto). Needs are indexical, id say, and wishes iconical. Simple nervous animals iconize. In their evolution there comes indexicality (like pheromons smelling, pointing, yelling) and symbolicity (like language) again. So I see individuation (evolution of individuals out of the universe) like a wave: symbolic(1), indexical(1), iconical(1), indexical(2), symbolical(2), and so on. Indexical(3) and symbolical(3) would mean, that individuality is handed over to a supersystem (like the internet), that integrates us, strips our individuality from us, and organizes us (makes us organs and no-more-organisms). In our own human interest, we must avoid this. It would be natural, but not good for us. In our civilized convenience-swing we have forgotten, that "natural" does not automatically mean "good", but may and often does mean "hostile". Nature in ancient times was justifiedly regarded as mostly hostile (sabre-teeth-tigers, snakes, locusts, diseases, famines...). Now, as nature appears in the form of technology, we dont recognize it as nature, but it is, and it is pure nature untamed, though phenomenologically completely different from the common-conceptual (green) nature we know and have tamed. Stephen, Edwina, list, I agree, that the term "operationally closed" is too much suggesting an objectivity, because "operation" sounds like something objective: An operation is mostly the same operation, seen from any perspective. So, with my own terms, i rather say "causally closed", and therefore, additionally to effect causation and final causation, I propose a secular kind of example cause (causa exemplaris). Causa efficiens I see as force reason, as effect causes are forced by natural laws. Regarding causa efficiens, no system is causally closed. Causa finalis I see as need reason, applying to organisms. Organisms have needs, and the system border for them and this causally closedness is the skin or the cell membrane of an organism. Causa exemplaris (secular) I see as wish reason or volation reason, applying to organisms with a nervous system, and any wish is causally contained within the nervous system, so there is causal closedness too. With social systems, I think, it is so, that they have an intention of becoming organism-like, or even human-like. Luhmann speaks of intentional systems. This intention, I think, is the reason life has emerged and evolved, as it more or less applies to any CAS, the more complex it is, the more, and the more complex (like humans) the agents it relies on are, the more too. So the emergence of fundamentalist religions, rigid ideologies, mafias, and so on, is a natural thing, and the goal of systems theory imho would be to show this danger, and so to help prevent it. So, politically I see value in the dogma, that a social system should be kept as trivial (non-complex) and transparent as possible, for not being able to develop causal closedness (systems´ own needs and wishes). This dogma is in accord with democratic achievements like separation of powers, civil and human rights, freedom of speech, press, religion..., mobility (travel, work, and habitation freedom...). This dogma stands in opposition against right-wing people-think (volkskoerper), compulsory communism, and excessive (intransparent) dataism. Best, Helmut 29. November 2018 um 22:02 Uhr Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> EDWINA >"Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of fundamentalism in religion." Yes, as per my reply to Helmut, Luhmann's "operationally closed" perspective seems to be an extension of the objectivist paradigm. Fundamentalist religion, man-made-in-god's-image, Darwinism, human exceptionalism, etc, all make assumptions about objective truth where reality plays out independently of the observer, and I think that this is the same trap that Luhmann's interpretation falls into. Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' memetics theory. This is a perspective where human behavior is regarded merely as an impartial medium for the transmission of cultural communications... a very odd position I must say. They're failing to recognize a most important point... the relationship between human behavior and culture... the "knowing how to be", imitation and pragmatism. sj From: Edwina Taborsky [tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 7:55 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu ; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Stephen Jarosek Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9287] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis I think this is an important distinction. Do societies function by ideology or by interactional relations with their environment and others? Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of fundamentalism in religion. This is where " the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it" that Stephen refers to. Cultural anthropology believes in the determinism of the cultural narrative. However, I think that a society, as a CAS [complex adaptive system] operates as an interactional system - and that includes its operating narrative. Granted - it can take generations for a cultural narrative to change - but - it does. Edwina On Thu 29/11/18 4:19 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: Dear members, In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing out: 1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED: The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as "... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems' operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however, that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human communicators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it. 2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT: This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role. In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt, Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent. Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration. DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the potential of the semiotic paradigm. The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an outline: http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6 3 By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more compelling position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its experiences into its being, its unity. WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR? There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement, and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing correlations between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is only one mechanism that might explain these correlations - DNA entanglement. So what's the holdup? There can only be one thing. Woo. Professionals terrified of having their valuable work assigned the woo label won't dare utter the words "DNA entanglement" in polite company. It is unfortunate that in this era of rampaging political correctness, with people being unpersoned for holding unapproved opinions, we are policing ourselves into silence. As I am independent of Academia, though, I have nothing to lose, and so I'm so I'm going to say it loud and proud: DNA entanglement. It's a thing. Regards, Stephen Jarosek no woo REFERENCES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR DNA ENTANGLEMENT: Apostolou, T.; Kintzios, S. Cell-to-Cell Communication: Evidence of Near-Instantaneous Distant, Non-Chemical Communication between Neuronal (Human SK-N-SH Neuroblastoma) Cells by Using a Novel Bioelectric Biosensor (JCS Volume 25, Numbers 9-10, 2018, pp. 62-74(13)) https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/00000025/f0020009/art 00002 Crew, B. (2018). This is the first detailed footage of DNA replication, and it wasn't what we expected. Sciencealert.com: https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected Greentechnique. (2011, January 15). Cleve Backster - Primary Perception (beginning at 344 seconds): https://youtu.be/V7V6D33HGt8?t=5m44s Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A. (2004). Non-local correlations between separated neural networks (E. Donkor, A. Pirick, & H. Brandt, Eds.). Quantum Information and Computation (Proceedings of SPIE), 5436(II), 107-117. http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.540785 ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
